Trump Requests Release of Epstein Grand Jury Files—What Now?
Signed by Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, the motion comes amid a frenzied media storm and calls for transparency regarding the Epstein files, fueled by the release of a memo from the DOJ and FBI earlier this month, which refuted various conspiracy theories that continue to loom large. There are also persistent questions about the history of Trump and Epstein's relationship, as the two previously socialized.
Trump spoke out about the grand jury request once more via Truth Social on Saturday morning.
"I have asked the Justice Department to release all grand jury testimony with respect to Jeffrey Epstein, subject only to court approval," he said. "With that being said, and even if the court gave its full and unwavering approval, nothing will be good enough for the troublemakers and radical left lunatics making the request. It will always be more, more, more."
Trump's instruction regarding the grand jury files is unlikely to settle the calls for more transparency, as he has not ordered the release of the DOJ files pertaining to Epstein, which are the documents that many—including prominent voices within the MAGA community—are eager to see.
Trump has strongly defended Bondi as she continues to come under fire for not releasing the Epstein files in full. There are long-standing calls to see a so-called "client list" supposedly belonging to Epstein. (Although the recently-released memo reports there's no evidence such a list exists.) Bondi's previous release of some files were heavily redacted and informed the public of little they had not learned before, prompting wide backlash.
A letter sent on Friday by Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, the Democratic whip and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to the heads of the DOJ and FBI also alleges that the FBI instructed agents to 'flag' any mention of Trump while reviewing files related to Epstein earlier this year.
Following the Trump Administration's request for the release of the Epstein grand jury records, here's what you need to know about what happens next.
What is a grand jury and why are the files sealed?
A grand jury consists of 16-23 jurors, according to the U.S. Courts. A grand jury "focuses on preliminary criminal matters only" and seeks to determine whether there is enough 'probable cause' to indict an individual under investigation for a crime. Grand jury proceedings are usually kept sealed to protect the safety of individuals investigated who, it may turn out, will not be charged with any crime. The private proceedings are also used to ensure the safety of witnesses who provide testimonies.
'Secrecy prevents those under scrutiny from fleeing or importuning the grand jurors, encourages full disclosure by witnesses, and protects the innocent from unwarranted prosecution, among other things,' reads an explanation by Congress.
Congress also notes that grand jury proceedings have, on occasion, been unsealed for matters of public interest. In 2018, a D.C. court ruled to unseal certain dockets related to independent counsel Ken Starr's investigation into former President Bill Clinton's relationship with then-White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
Read More: Why Trump Can't Put Out the Epstein Fire He Helped Ignite
Why has the Department of Justice made a motion to unseal the grand jury transcripts?
The DOJ's motion follows mass calls—from both within and outside Trump's MAGA base—for transparency around the investigation into Epstein, who died by suicide in 2019 while in jail awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.
Tensions were exacerbated on Thursday when the Wall Street Journal published an article claiming that in 2003, Trump wrote a birthday letter for Epstein which included a drawing of a naked woman and the signature 'Donald.' The article claimed the letter included the note: 'Happy Birthday—and may every day be another wonderful secret.'
Trump has called the letter false, saying he '[doesn't] draw pictures.' He has responded by suing the Journal's publisher Dow Jones and NewsCorp's owner Rupert Murdoch.
"We have just filed a powerhouse lawsuit against everyone involved in publishing the false, malicious, defamatory, FAKE NEWS 'article' in the useless 'rag' that is, the Wall Street Journal," Trump said on Friday evening. "This historic legal action is being brought against the so-called authors of this defamation, the now fully disgraced WSJ, as well as its corporate owners and affiliates, with Rupert Murdoch and Robert Thomson (whatever his role is) at the top of the list."
Meanwhile, the grand jury-related motion filed on Friday calls for the Epstein documents to be unsealed due to the 'public interest' that shows no signs of waning, though it says that they will continue to redact 'victim-related and other personal identifying information' from said documents.
The request also called for the release of transcripts related to the indictment and conviction of former British socialite—and Epstein's right-hand—Ghislaine Maxwell, who was sentenced to 20 years in prison in 2022 for conspiring with Epstein to sexually abuse minors.
'[T]his Court should conclude that the Epstein and Maxwell cases qualify as a matter of public interest, release the associated grand jury transcripts, and lift any preexisting protective orders,' the motion reads.
Who decides whether the grand jury files are released and how long could it be until a decision is reached?
According to Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the secrecy of grand jury proceedings is generally protected, but there are authorized disclosures of certain documents if it is deemed to be legally justifiable.
The request must now be approved with permission of the federal court responsible for overseeing the criminal case, and since both Maxwell and Epstein's cases were in New York City, it will likely be a New York-based federal judge who receives the request for the files to be released.
The scope of the grand jury testimonials is unclear, and as the DOJ noted in its motion, the courts will have to consider the privacy of victims named in the testimony and will need to consult with any uncharged people named. All in all, the process could take weeks, months, or longer.
Read More: White House Tries to End Trump's Role in Epstein Saga, Nixes Calls For Special Prosecuto
How has the Department of Justice previously argued against the release of the Epstein files?
There have long been efforts to gain access to sealed documents related to the Epstein case. In 2017, entertainment website Radar Online sued the FBI for sealed documents related to the case under the Freedom of Information Act.
Career federal prosecutor Maurene Comey, daughter of former FBI Director James Comey, filed a declaration in 2024 in which she argued that the Epstein documents could "reasonably be expected to interfere" with Maxwell's pending appeal, since it could impact multiple aspects of the case. Following this declaration, a Federal District Court upheld the secrecy for the majority of the files.
Comey was fired earlier this week as a U.S. federal prosecutor, after serving as one of the lead prosecutors in the cases against Epstein and Maxwell, as well as in the recent trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs. Some lawmakers, including Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff of California, have raised questions over Comey's firing.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
13 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Map Shows States Trying To Ban ICE Agents Wearing Masks
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A growing coalition of Democratic-led states is pushing legislation that would prohibit federal agents from wearing face coverings during immigration enforcement operations. California, New York, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania have introduced bills that would require federal officers to display visible identification—with limited exceptions for safety or undercover purposes—as part of a progressive effort to increase transparency and limit the agency's expanded powers under the Trump administration. Why It Matters Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has come under increased criticism for deploying agents in plain clothes and face coverings during operations, a tactic officials say is necessary to protect agents and their families from threats. The agency's approach has drawn heightened scrutiny amid the Trump administration's aggressive push to deport millions of undocumented migrants, placing ICE at the center of a highly visible crackdown on immigration. What To Know At the federal level, House Democrats have introduced the No Anonymity in Immigration Enforcement Act, which would require ICE agents conducting enforcement operations within the United States to display clear identification—with limited exceptions for public safety threats. Exceptions would be permitted only in limited circumstances, such as when there is an imminent threat to the agent's life or risk of serious bodily harm or when protective gear is necessary for health or safety reasons. In any case where an exception is used, a supervisor must review and document the incident within 48 hours to assess whether it was justified and determine whether disciplinary action is warranted. Senate Democrats have introduced the VISIBLE Act, which mandates that agents from ICE and Customs and Border Protection wear legible identification showing their names and agency affiliations. It would also prohibit the use of most face coverings during operations. Democratic Senators Alex Padilla of California and Cory Booker of New Jersey introduced the bill, saying the measure seeks to increase transparency and accountability in federal immigration enforcement. Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons defended agents' continued use of face coverings, even as the agency faces mounting criticism for obscuring personnel identities during enforcement actions. "I've said it publicly before, I'm not a proponent of the masks. However, if that's a tool that the men and women of ICE to keep themselves and their family safe, then I will allow it," Lyons said on CBS's Face the Nation. Representative Laura Friedman of California said in a news release: "I am deeply concerned about the prospect of ICE agents continuing to go about immigration raids in plainclothes, masks, and without identifiers that indicate what agency they're representing. The rules governing law enforcement should extend to federal immigration agents." Federal agents in a hallway awaiting individuals exiting hearings at an immigration court in New York. Federal agents in a hallway awaiting individuals exiting hearings at an immigration court in New York. Andrea Renault/STAR MAX/IPx At the state level, California is leading the way with its No Secret Police Act, introduced in June by Democratic state Senators Scott Wiener and Jesse Arreguín. Senate Bill 627 would prohibit all law enforcement officers operating in the state, including federal agents, from covering their faces during enforcement actions unless in specific, limited circumstances such as SWAT deployments, medical masking or undercover work. The California Senate Public Safety Committee advanced the bill last week, but it faces a legal gauntlet, particularly over whether a state can dictate how federal officers dress. In New York, Democratic Assemblymember Tony Simone introduced the Mandating End of Lawless Tactics (MELT) Act earlier this week. The MELT Act mirrors California's SB 627 by banning masks for state, local and federal officers, and it would require law enforcement officers to clearly display their names or badge numbers and ban most mask use during public duties. Violations would constitute misdemeanors. In Massachusetts, Democratic state Representative Jim Hawkins filed a similar bill on July 9, focused specifically on ICE personnel. He argues that ICE's use of face coverings in routine operations blurs the line between law enforcement and intimidation. In Pennsylvania, Democratic state Representatives Paul Friel and Rick Krajewski are preparing to introduce the Officer Visibility Act in early August. The bill would ban face coverings during public enforcement operations unless medically required or part of a covert investigation. What People Are Saying Tom Decker, a former director of ICE's New York field office, told Newsweek: "President Trump and his administration are doing exactly what he promised in his campaign, strengthening our borders and removing public safety threats from our communities, to include aliens in violation of our immigration laws." Representative Laura Friedman of California said in a statement shared with Newsweek: "I'll keep fighting to pass commonsense legislation, like the No Masks for ICE Act, to keep our communities safe." Scott Mechkowski, a retired ICE agent who worked for the agency between the mid-1990s and 2019, previously told Newsweek: "I think everyone knows the reasons for the masks. Every agent knows they would be doxxed [publicly identified] as would their families." John Sandweg, who served as acting director of ICE under former President Barack Obama from August 2013 to February 2014, previously told Newsweek: "If you're getting arrested by an officer or agent in a mask, especially if at that point they've not yet identified themselves as a federal officer, it creates a risk of bystanders thinking, rushing in to help, which could create the risk of violence or harm caused to the bystanders." Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, previously told Newsweek: "ICE officers are being doxed, physically assaulted, and attacked—in some cases, their families are even being threatened. Instead of spending their time further demonizing heroic ICE officers, Democrat politicians should dial back the rhetoric and tell their supporters to stop attacking law enforcement." Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem told CBS: "It's for the safety of those individuals or the work that they're doing as far as protecting their identity so they can continue to do investigative work."
USA Today
15 minutes ago
- USA Today
After $220 million Columbia deal, Trump promises more to come
After commending Columbia University for "agreeing to do what is right," President Trump indicates his pressure campaign to reshape prestigious colleges isn't stopping any time soon. WASHINGTON – After announcing a $220 million deal with Columbia University to restore its federal funding, President Donald Trump indicated his pressure campaign to reshape prestigious colleges isn't stopping anytime soon. Not long after the settlement was reached, he wrote on his social media platform that similar agreements with "Numerous other Higher Education Institutions that have hurt so many, and been so unfair and unjust, and have wrongly spent federal money, much of it from our government, are upcoming." Columbia, a selective and wealthy Ivy League school in New York City, on July 23 agreed to pay more than $220 million in fines over several years to the government for allegedly violating federal civil rights laws. Last year, the campus became the epicenter of student protests related to the Israel-Hamas war. At the time, the tense environment drew nationwide concern over a spike in antisemitic and anti-Muslim incidents. The heightened scrutiny also focused the ire of many conservative politicians, who have long accused higher education more broadly of being too left-leaning. Read more: How Columbia University became the epicenter of disagreement over the Israel-Hamas war Trump's criticisms of the campus, however, have extended far beyond its compliance with antidiscrimination protections. In March, he demanded that the school overhaul its hiring, admissions and teaching practices. Columbia's president, Claire Shipman, said the university would appoint an independent monitor to oversee the campus in conjunction with federal officials, and to ensure administrators are abiding by the terms of the deal. The 22-page agreement contains sweeping concessions from the college, including handing over admissions data to the independent monitor, new faculty appointments, conducting reviews of some academic departments and more greatly scrutinizing foreign student enrollment. In return, the Trump administration promised to reroute more than $400 million in paused federal funding, largely for research, back to the college. In an interview on CNN the morning after the arrangement was announced, Shipman indicated billions more dollars were at stake. "It's not just money for Columbia," she said. "This is about science. It's about curing cancer, cutting edge, boundary breaking science that actually benefits the country and humanity." The unprecedented agreement came weeks after the administration struck a separate accord with the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, another member of the Ivy League, to unfreeze $175 million in return for apologizing to swimmers who competed against a transgender athlete years ago. "I also want to thank and commend Columbia University for agreeing to do what is right," Trump wrote. "I look forward to watching them have a great future in our Country, maybe greater than ever before!" Zachary Schermele is an education reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach him by email at zschermele@ Follow him on X at @ZachSchermele and Bluesky at @
The Hill
15 minutes ago
- The Hill
Epstein ‘birthday book': Victims' lawyer calls on Congress to subpoena estate
A lawyer for more than 200 of Jeffrey Epstein's victims called on Congress to subpoena the late financier's estate for the so-called 'birthday book' that allegedly includes provocative letters from high-profile individuals. The Wall Street Journal last week reported on a letter it said President Trump had sent to Epstein. Trump has sued the Journal and denied writing the letter. Attorney Bradley Edwards said in a Wednesday interview on MSNBC's 'The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell' that the Epstein estate possesses the 2003 'birthday book.' He said he has 'numerous' clients who can confirm the book's authenticity and said he suspects the executors of Epstein's estate would be willing to turn over the book if they were asked to do so. 'If they didn't just voluntarily turn over the book, out of fear of reprisal, Congress could issue a subpoena to their attorneys,' Edwards said. 'I know the executors' lawyers. I worked with them for years. They're good people. They're good lawyers. They would comply with a subpoena immediately,' Edwards added. 'We could solve this problem so quickly, if people actually want to solve problems.' Edwards said doing so would provide answers quickly and give the victims some closure. 'Nobody would have to guess. There wouldn't need to be a lawsuit. There wouldn't have to wait to be discovery. You would immediately have the answers. You could flip to the page: Is there a letter? Is there not a letter? It's over. The victims then get to move on.' Edwards said he expects the birthday book would provide answers to many questions about Epstein, including, 'Who were Jeffrey Epstein's best friends at the time? What letters did his family write to him? What other pictures were in there? Things of that nature.' 'Redact victim names, release the book and move on,' Edwards said. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) joined the MSNBC program shortly after Edwards's interview and said he didn't know the book was in the estate's possession and indicated he plans to move forward with issuing a subpoena. 'It is a revelation to me that he said that that birthday book is with private lawyers in the Epstein estate,' Khanna said in the interview, describing Edwards's comments as a 'bombshell revelation.' Khanna noted that the House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee on Wednesday approved several subpoenas, including one directing DOJ to turn over materials relating to the Epstein files, but Khanna said he wasn't confident the subpoena would yield results. 'We subpoenaed the Epstein files, but that's a hard thing to do to get the Department of Justice to cooperate in releasing those files,' Khanna said. 'What's not hard to do is to subpoena private attorneys in a private estate and to get compliance.' Khanna said he plans to invite Edwards to meet with the Oversight Committee to discuss the issue further, adding, 'And I think we can easily move forward on this subpoena of that birthday book, which could really advance this case.' The Wall Street Journal reported last week that the book includes a letter from Trump with several lines of text 'framed by the outline of a naked woman.' The letter, according to the Journal, ends, 'Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.' Trump denies having written the letter, which he called 'a fake thing,' and has filed a defamation lawsuit against the newspaper.
